Parts Lego didn't need to make

[Takanuinuva]

Do you think there are some parts that Lego did not need to make molds for. Like where current molds would have done just as well if not better.

I think they did not need to make the ball and chain part when the Ghost Polybag from Monster Fighters used the small chain and a technic ball joint for one just fine.

[Borex]

The new Darth Vader helmet

[kinggregus]

I can think of Brick 1x1x3

Or Brick 1x2x2

I think that for both of the above case simple bricks stacked over each other can do the job...

[legoguy1984]

Those bricks that are 2X1Xn high when two or more 2X1X1 bricks would have sufficed.

[wendyw]

I can think of Brick 1x1x3

Or Brick 1x2x2

I agree with the 1x2x2 but I like 1x1x(whatever) bricks because it's so easy for a stack of 1x1s to end up all misaligned and wonky looking.

[The Indivisible Woman]

No further comment needed. There are definitely others, but these ones come to mind straight away...

[anothergol]

That 1x1 brick+clip is indeed pointless, but the one next to it is useful: when you build small, you often need something to act as a clip AND hold/consolidate what's around it.

That is not the case for the 1x1 brick+clip, it has no use over the same as an assembly. But many parts that are compounds of others, are useful for consolidation, or simply look better (like 2x2 curved slopes).

One could argue that the 1x1+clip makes it easier for kids, though.

[Kivi]

For me the most obvious are raised 1x6 arch and 1x5x4 arch irregular with reinforced underside. I still prefer the old versions with smooth curvature from top to bottom.

[THERIZE]

The new passenger train front mold. Usually i don't mind about giant moulded pieces but that one is to bad for words. The old one from the RC train was pretty good.

[antp]

That 1x1 brick+clip is indeed pointless,

I do not really agree. It is like saying a 1x1 brick is pointless because you could stack three 1x1 plates ;)

Like for the 1x1xN bricks, this brick with clip avoids alignment problems and probably looks better when used in the middle of a wall.

However for the 2x2xN and 2x4xN bricks are really useless: the normal 2x2 and 2x4 are already well aligned and well attached when stacked.

Really useless parts can be found in the late 90s / early 00s sets, in Lego's dark times.

One of those that horrified me back then is this car base:

http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=30235

even the wheel holders are just molded with the base like if they were additional parts glued to it

you could do the same with several basic parts (plates, brick, inverted slopes, wheel holder) without loosing solidity of the final model

edit: there is even a second one similar: https://www.bricklin...tem.asp?P=30277 ... couldn't they use just that one and add a few plates to it? They achieved to make a metapart based on a metapart.

There's also a longer version: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=30262

Edited June 17, 2015 by antp

[dr_spock]

I think "Useless" parts could make interesting seed parts for Iron Builder contests.

[alanyuppie]

L shaped plates except the 2x2 one.

[Saberwing40k]

Useless parts. by Saberwing007, on Flickr

All of these parts. I say that some single mold and specialized parts have their place, these ones do not. Not a one of these parts does anything that other existing parts can't do better. A number of them are from the Juniors line, which I do not understand. Would it kill Lego to use the molds they already created for Jack Stone and that stuff?

[Takanuinuva]

Useless parts. by Saberwing007, on Flickr

All of these parts. I say that some single mold and specialized parts have their place, these ones do not. Not a one of these parts does anything that other existing parts can't do better. A number of them are from the Juniors line, which I do not understand. Would it kill Lego to use the molds they already created for Jack Stone and that stuff?

I disagree with this part. http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=99206 Any small part with connection points is very useful. And this part can be used to make smaller sturdier snot techniques than other counterparts.

I also disagree with the skull part. Mainly cause I like that piece and Skeletons a lot. I also like the BURP parts as it save space when building large areas like mountains or the base of a castle.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Takanuinuva

[LEGO Historian]

This is a little bit off topic but I find it sort of funny.... the LEGO Louvre Archectural Set.... would it have killed TLG to just use 2x2 slopes and corners?

If you cough too loudly this Pyramid du Louvre will fall apart....

Yeah I know... it's done this way to be "an interesting build"..... well how about STABILITY.... which this lacks.

This looks more like one of the Mayan pyramids at Chichen Itza in Mexico's Yucatan Peninnsula, than it does the Egyptian version that architect I. M. Pei modeled his after.

This is one of the problems with so many new constructions.... they look good... but don't touch them or they might break.

Rant over.....

Oh.... almost forgot... I've got a bazillion of the 2x2 regular trans-clear slopes... and I've been praying for a convex corner trans-clear slope for years to make skylights and other interesting architecttural uses... including a glass pyramid.... so I was quite annoyed when this came out in a very complex way..... ... sans the 2x2 convex corner trans-clear slopes....

Edited June 18, 2015 by LEGO Historian

[splatman]

Useless parts. by Saberwing007, on Flickr

I disagree on the 8x8, 8x16, 4x16, 12x12, and 10x20 bricks. They're great for floors (in multistory buildings) and bridges. The 2 large lattice panels just look poorly designed. The solid base and corner notches could have been omitted. A row of bricks, plates, or tiles on top, would suffice in linking them together, and, in the case of tiles, hide the studs. Even then, they would probably still be BUPs*, if not easily worked into a MOC. The rest? What were they ______? I'll let you fill in the blank.

*Big Ugly Piece(s).

[Arigomi]

Really useless parts can be found in the late 90s / early 00s sets, in Lego's dark times.

One of those that horrified me back then is this car base:

http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=30235

even the wheel holders are just molded with the base like if they were additional parts glued to it

you could do the same with several basic parts (plates, brick, inverted slopes, wheel holder) without loosing solidity of the final model

edit: there is even a second one similar: https://www.bricklin...tem.asp?P=30277 ... couldn't they use just that one and add a few plates to it? They achieved to make a metapart based on a metapart.

There's also a longer version: https://www.bricklin...tem.asp?P=30262

There is an updated version of that in the Juniors line.

Young kids that are ready to graduate from Duplo aren't ready for regular System sets. These kids need models that are easy to build and don't need gentle handling during play.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Arigomi

[antp]

Yes, I didn't mention that one because it is part of the Junior line, so it has its reasons. Unlike the other one which was in the regular Town/City line, replacing the better-looking vehicles of the 80s/90s.

[kinggregus]

That 1x1 brick+clip is indeed pointless, but the one next to it is useful: when you build small, you often need something to act as a clip AND hold/consolidate what's around it.

I do not really agree. It is like saying a 1x1 brick is pointless because you could stack three 1x1 plates ;)

I disagree with this part. http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=99206 Any small part with connection points is very useful.

I disagree on the 8x8, 8x16, 4x16, 12x12, and 10x20 bricks.

I guess we can all agree that each brick created could have some use or improve the design of a creation one way or the other. However, the frustration may come from the fact that some pieces are not as useful as some bricks that we’d like to see (I am thinking about a plate with studs on both sides). But this is another debate.

Edited June 18, 2015 by kinggregus

[legoguy1984]

A plate with studs both sides seems to be the one thing on everyone's wish list yet has never been made by Lego. With all these other not so useful parts you'd think some designer would have thought of that one long ago. Just an observation.

[antp]

They made some as prototype, someone posted photos of that some time ago (but they are not online any more) with other non-existing parts.

I guess there are reasons why they didn't put it in production.

[wendyw]

I disagree on the 8x8, 8x16, 4x16, 12x12, and 10x20 bricks. They're great for floors (in multistory buildings) and bridges.

Yeah, definitely. They can be really useful structural pieces. Arguably you could use plates instead of bricks, but sometimes thicker floors/ceilings/whatever make more sense and stacked plates can be a pain in the butt to get apart again sometimes.

[fred67]

I agree the large bricks can be useful; it may be true that for a blanket of snow on my Hoth display, I could have used 16 2x4's for every 8x16 I used, but then I'd have to connect them all on the bottom (I only used plates on the bottom to join all the corners of the large bricks). I also have a number of gray ones that will do quite well to make a fairly easy to build and sturdy bridge/elevated train.

It's both an economy of parts (when you consider the "glue" pieces to hold all the smaller bricks together) and structural integrity.

[dr_spock]

A plate with studs both sides seems to be the one thing on everyone's wish list yet has never been made by Lego. With all these other not so useful parts you'd think some designer would have thought of that one long ago. Just an observation.

Mega Bloks makes a plate like that. I don't know if it is MB patented or not but it would be interesting if LEGO had to license it from MB.

[antp]

Seeing all the parts "copied" from Lego, I do not really see how a competitor could sue Lego if they do a new parts after them. Especially an "obvious one".